Live data from Hacker News

How getting richer made teenagers less free

theargumentmag.com

261–270 of 344 posts

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#261
post #28

And it also creates permanent adulescents, scared of responsibilities, scared of commitment, scared of exploring. I've seen it countless times with teenagers in my family, they're overgrown babies.

28 is the new 18. The problem is nobody's getting any younger on the other side of life, so that's a decade of life lost.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#262
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fantastic news, population density has increased substantially![1] 57.5 average people/square mile in 1970, growing to 93.8 in 2020. 1: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/density-d...

The size of the United States has not increased since 1970, but the number of people has. So yes, no shit, (US pop / US land area) has gone up. But the question is, "is the average neighborhood more dense than it was in 1970", and that's not a question you can answer from that number, because obviously cities & towns have spread since then. If you want an intellectually honest comparison, take a look at the District…

No one asked that question except for you.

The other commenter and I were talking about cars.

Car ownership rates increased slightly, number of households nearly doubled, and average population density went up in every state except DC. There are more cars. Cars do not stay in one place, especially in the case of suburbanization.

Also, I'm not sure why/how the DC piece is intellectually honest. The Washington Metropolitan Statistical area has more than doubled in population since 1970[1]. Do you think all of the people who moved to PG County stay out of DC? That must be why the beltway is so easy to maneuver!

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_metropolitan_area

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#263
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't get healthcare Kinda thing only sheltered people say. When I was unemployed and on free gov't health insurance (medi-cal), I got all my healthcare for free and most of my appointments like MRIs were next-day. Not as good as tech company insurance, but "can't get healthcare" is not a thing in the US. > you have to work three jobs Plot the number of people working multiple jobs vs time and you'll see a flat…

Medicaid is a poor substitute of a proper PPO plan. The reimbursements are low, so there are fewer providers, and it requires you to not have any assets.

Medicaid is better than most PPO plans!

Sure you’re more limited with providers, but there are plenty and out of pocket costs are near zero.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#264
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The size of the United States has not increased since 1970, but the number of people has. So yes, no shit, (US pop / US land area) has gone up. But the question is, "is the average neighborhood more dense than it was in 1970", and that's not a question you can answer from that number, because obviously cities & towns have spread since then. If you want an intellectually honest comparison, take a look at the District…

No one asked that question except for you. The other commenter and I were talking about cars. Car ownership rates increased slightly, number of households nearly doubled, and average population density went up in every state except DC. There are more cars. Cars do not stay in one place, especially in the case of suburbanization. Also, I'm not sure why/how the DC piece is intellectually honest. The Washington Metropol…

> unless density has increased substantially, then on any given ride you're likely to encounter similar number of vehicles than before, not counting major / commute roads of course, but those aren't the ones kids are riding on

This was the original mention of density. Sure, cars don't stay in one place, but if we're talking about kids walking/biking around their suburban neighborhood, how big is the impact if there's a new 50k suburb on the other side of the urban core? Even commuters from the exurbs are taking the dastardly 45mph stroads, not the stopsign-laden 25mph streets through your neighborhood.

The common parlance around here is that "greater density" means smaller houses closer together or multi-unit structures. If you build a new subdivision outside town, nobody says "oh wow the town got so much denser", it just got broader. Waving at "57.5 average people/square mile in 1970, growing to 93.8 in 2020" says absolutely nothing about the experience of the average person on the average streets near their homes.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that a bit like raising your kid with the intent of playing in the NBA though? I understand that it worked well for your friend and I am not knocking athletics, my own daughter is doing gymnastics, but that seems like either a post-hoc justification on the part of your friend or a strategy with a low rate of success such that it seems a bit odd to go for as a parent. Personally, I’ve seen far more of my helicop…

> Two have sadly taken their own lives despite seemingly good FAANG careers Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately I think we have way over indexed on "success" being tied to money and seeking these careers at companies that drive people to exhaustion and let the competitive environment drive everyone harder and harder with a ratchet effect.

IMO it’s less about success but a lack of reliable safety nets. Absent a good supporting environment, what choice does an individual have than to maximise their own outcome.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, population has grown, but unless density has increased substantially, then on any given ride you're likely to encounter similar number of vehicles than before, not counting major / commute roads of course, but those aren't the ones kids are riding on also, bike lanes were virtually non-existent back then

Fantastic news, population density has increased substantially![1] 57.5 average people/square mile in 1970, growing to 93.8 in 2020. 1: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/density-d...

That's not the density I was referring to. That doesn't measure city/suburb density. We have many more suburbs (therefore more density overall) but the number of houses within a suburb (where a child might be riding around) is not likely to have increased.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all living creatures are selfish to the core and will always optimize to minimize effort and maximize personal reward , therefore existing in a soft gentle system will result in acclimatization to a soft gentle system ... this universe is hostile impersonal harsh brutal and altogether basically not a place that anybody could ever be prepared for after having congealed in an insular bubble like the global west ... it…

Yep. That's why bees and ants simply don't exist.

zooming out a bit , humans look a lot like ants

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#268
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that parents feel like their kids are safer and more sheltered when they restrict their movement, while the opposite is true. There was never a time in history where kids would be targeted and manipulated by corporations as today. The digital phone is a marketing gadget that brainwashes us to constantly interact with it. In extreme cases, every aspect of our lives is being scored, monetized and compared.…

To make it a bit tropey, a sheltered kid is much more susceptible to people luring them out of their safe space with promises of excitement and Things Their Parents Would Not Approve Of. Of course, the data (e.g. teen pregnancies) shows that this isn't a universal / statistically provable truth, but still. It makes sense in my head.

I mean, not really. 'Unsheltered' kids that face hard reality are the ones that end up in gangs.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interestingly, I've heard from parents that many feel like they're both suffocating and feeling inadequate When my spouse and I were dating, we made fun of those “overly involved parents” who tried to live vicariously through their kids and over-scheduled them. Since having kids, my spouse has (over a one year period) put our 5 year old in: T-ball, swimming, dance, theater, Sunday school, church, soccer, gymnastics…

What's striking is the helplessness that seeps through your message. As if you had zero control over what happens. You're just a bystander watching what happens to your children. It's time for you to wake up, and start exercising your own authority.

Let us know how his divorce goes.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#270
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in a suburb what else is there to do? Going to any interesting spots to hang out with friends involve asking your parents to bring you there with the family car and then arranging a strict timetable on when to pick you up again.

> If you're in a suburb what else is there to do? i mean, i agree with you, theres nothing to do anymore. but surely there was less to do in the 50s? if youre poor, theres never much to do really.

It doesn't help that you can do a lot more indoors now, and the indoors has gotten more addictive. So relative to that, there's even less you can do outdoors.
Post reply on HN